Atheist Debates - Debate Review: Am I too skeptical?

During my recent debate with Braxton Hunter, it seemed I was being accused of being "too skeptical". That, and a few other debate related notes, are discussed here.

[Methossoldier]

Hello Matt, Greetings from Veracruz, Mexico. I just want to say that I watch all your videos and I love them. As you know, Mexico is one of the most religious countries and its really hard to be atheist in a place like this. Im not a native english speaker, so I hope this message is legible to you. Keep doing the great vídeos! Adiós!

[Tiberius]

The corollary to "You're too skeptical!" is "You're not gullible enough!". How could anyone making the first argument NOT see how the second argument is buried within it?

[pansepot]

If their god existed she would not need apologists. I don’t see anyone apologizing for gravity.

[justsomeguy]

In terms of what proof can change my mind... I actually find I tend to be more sceptical with religious claims given the number of times I've found people to be dishonest in their claims intentionally or otherwise.

It really is paradoxal given that the best believers can give me is personal testimony, which I first have to assume that they are being honest.

Course, the whole purpose of evidence and proof is to defeat skeptisism, as no level of doubt can stand up to airtight proof.

The other level is that if God knew and loved me like the Christians like to say, he would know why I doubt, and exactly what he could do so that I'll believe in him right away and forever. But, that's why religious believers say you have to seek him to believe in him, confirmation bias and gullibility is the path to salvation.

[corynydam]

I tend to think people who think there is such a thing as too much skepticism are either confusing it with cynicism or else are afraid to admit that there are things they do not and perhaps can not know with any reasonable level of certainty. Most of skepticism is just having the humility to say “I don’t know yet” when you don’t actually have the evidence required for knowledge on a specific proposition.

[wbdill]

Good recap Matt. Enjoyed the debate too. BTW, the audio and video quality on this video are excellent.

[lamywater]

Love the debates, Matt. Thanks for posting them. About a year ago, I was going through another period of reassessing my beliefs and was drifting towards agnostic theism. These debates and the rock-solid logic helped me clear my head and get to a much more sophisticated and informed position. It wasn't just your debates, but all of the high-profile ones out there. I must say, yours are definitely my favorite. You are usually very good at explaining your ideas and philosophy in a clear way. Anyways... Thank you for doing what you do.

[aaronhillsworld]

I like how someone pointed out on the other video that theists don’t think they’re “too skeptical” when it comes to their disbelief in other gods outside of their religion 😂

[total.stranger]

You're about to have a major milestone birthday soon, Matt. I hope that it's a happy one for you!

[jasperwinkle]

Thanks, Matt. Important conversation for people to have, and you presented it well.

[jointchief]

How did I miss a Dillahunty debate!?!?
About to go look for it in the YouTube then I'll be back.

[joeturner]

I just remembered a phrase from Shogun. 'Drinking tea from an empty cup'.

[Infidel_hero]

Saw you in SF for magic & skepticism last year
Looking good! Keep up the good work

[AbleAnderson]

This is a great video, one of my favorites from Matt

[JMUDoc]

Asking "am I TOO skeptical?" is like asking "is my immune system TOO strong?" Given the choice between believing

a) a possibly-true thing AND a possibly-false thing, or
b) neither,

I would go for b).

[peterbumper]

Dont worry about it Matt. you make the conversation easy to listen to.

[vibrantphilosophy]

Even though I mostly don’t agree with your position, I like how you are always respectful in debates.

[aaronhillsworld]

I agree with you Matt. I’m more of a fan of conversational debates. I think 20 min is too long of an opener. I prefer shorter back and forths especially when someone decides to touch on 20-30 different topics. It’s too many points to digest and rebut at one time.

[wolf]

These videos are extremely educational as I learn different terms and their definitions - such as "Libertarian Free Will", which is a term I've never heard but (on hearing the definition) realise I have encountered and discussed in the past and fallen on the side of not believing we possess it on the grounds that if I rewound time, I would _still_ be making the choice based on the information and state of mind I had at the time. Would I make the same decision "if I knew then what I know now"? Maybe not, but the point is, I _didn't_ know then what I know now and turning back the clock is not going to confer upon me a different viewpoint of the situation - unless it was such a trivial choice as to be practically random in the first place or I quite literally tossed a coin.
And you've prompted me to look into Compatibilism to see what the arguments are on that - to the point that I stopped the video and went and watched some Daniel Dennett videos on Compatibilism and some on Determinism... all the better to understand the content of this video.
I was part of an online forum where we were debating all manner of Theist vs Atheist, Creationism vs Natural Processes etc and there was one guy whose main argument was the Watchmaker Argument and he was adamant that evolution by natural selection was bunk and seemed to think that if he disproved evolution, the _only possible alternative_ was creation. A lot of us argued for days/weeks/months with this guy and basically, short of getting a time machine and taking him on a lengthy journey in which we could demonstrate, generation by generation with no gaps at all, that the descendants of _this_ animal with no eyes managed to evolve eyes and _that_ animal's descendants eventually evolved into something that looked completely different, he wasn't going to accept that evidence supports evolution. His "evidence" for believing in god? The 1611 KJV _said_ god was real.
Evolution has met and exceeded my standards of evidence - it was good enough when we just had fossil records and the observations of ring species and moths that adapted to the soot of Industrial-Age England (and subsequently have adapted again as the soot has diminished) and now the study of genetics has provided even more-compelling evidence.
A collection of anecdotes and bold-faced assertions, contradictory stories, conflicting subsects, fallacious arguments that often don't even address the topic at hand (deistic arguments, even if not fallacious, don't support specific theistic views) and such do not remotely meet the standards of evidence for a fantastic tale of a supernatural uncreated universe-creating entity outside the bounds of what we can perceive or measure.

[josed.vargas]

I'm not sure I believe it's possible for someone to be "too skeptical." I'm going to withhold judgment on that until further evidence is put forward